]]>The Dallas Morning News released their May 2015 Voter’s Guide this week, with information and Q&A on all the local candidates that responded.

The candidates were asked how much money they had raised so far and to identify their top three contributors. DISD District 1 candidate Edwin Flores listed Dallas businessman Monty Bennett as a top contributor. No specifics are available until the first required filing, but Flores claims a campaign stash of $50,000, so Bennett is in deep.

This blog has written of Bennett before. While his main business focus is hotels, Bennett attracted attention in Fort Worth when, embroiled in a controversy over a water pipeline traversing his east Texas property, he contributed $235,000 to 3 Tarrant County Water Board candidates last year.

Bennett drew our attention when he identified himself on his website as a home rule supporter, one of the shadowy contributors to Support Our Public Schools, the cobbled together group that unsuccessfully attempted to put a proposition on the ballot that would remove Dallas ISD from state education law oversight and open a Pandora’s box of legal challenges.

Mr. Flores was trustee Mike Morath’s appointee to the Home Rule Commission. Morath is generally credited with coming up with the home rule scheme. Flores, who co-wrote this opinion piece on the virtues of home rule possibilities, was one of the 5 commissioners that were outvoted by their fellow commissioners in a defeat of the home rule initiative.

Bennett’s company, the Ashford Group, holds $5 billion in assets and sponsors, ahem… pays for, a local blog that relentlessly supported home rule along with current superintendent Mike Miles.

Miles’ main accomplishments to date has been to increase the number of low performing schools and increase administrators on campus by almost 50%, from 490 in 2012 to 924 in 2015.

But Bennett’s most alarming foray into education has been his involvement in anti-school bond campaigns. He gave $56,198 to the campaign to defeat the Keller and Birdville ISD bond election in 2014. Did I tell you Bennett lives in Dallas?

And this guy is supporting Edwin Flores as trustee for the Dallas ISD Board?

District 1 WT White parents have been raising a ruckus at DISD board meetings and posting comments on news articles, detailing the sorry state of affairs on their campus and in other District 1 schools, pleading for money to upgrade their facilities.

Do they know that Flores, who represented WT White 3 years ago, is bankrolled by a man that actively opposes school district bond programs and has the money to make them not happen? Bond programs in districts that he doesn’t even live in?

The Dallas Regional Chamber Education PAC announced, unsurprisingly, that they were endorsing Mr. Flores last week. They have worked together before, so one would assume a certain comfort level there.

I don’t know the Chamber’s reason for existence, but I would think it has a lot to do with economic prosperity; you know, cutting deals and doing business. Making loans and buying lumber, pouring concrete and hiring electricians.

Do the Chamber folks know their endorsed candidate is funded by a man that opposes school district bonds?

This may be a case where the Dallas Regional Chamber gets what it deserves if Mr. Flores is elected. The kids in moldy rat-infested portables deserve better though.

]]>A complaint has been filed with the Department of Education alleging that DISD is, basically, diverting money away from the neediest kids in the district and spending it elsewhere while claiming to be spending the money equitably.

The complaint is the result of what has to have been untold hours of research and untold hours of work spent compiling the data, writing the complaint and filing the complaint.

To the group of taxpayers and parents who worked tirelessly on behalf of the poorest kids in our city, I say a heartfelt thank you. To Bill Betzen, who has become the group’s de facto spokesperson (thus putting himself personally in the line of fire), I say thank you. And I’m certain that 9,000+ teachers join me in thanking you for your work on behalf of 150,000 children.

This is truly a big deal, which is evidenced by the response of Team Miles, with one member going so far as to characterize the allegations as “hogwash.” How professional.

First, Miles came out and held a midday press conference. He even went “off script” in his I-mean-business mad-voice (the one that generally shuts up the minions and is parroted by the principals with the worst climate survey scores), saying something about how, “we are going to stop taking one piece of information that you don’t understand and then filing a claim or starting an investigation on it.”

Umm, Floyd? I think they just did file a claim and start an investigation. But it wasn’t based on one piece of information a dozen educated people somehow failed to understand. It was based on hours of research and reams of data. So much for your mad-voice.

For Step 2 of Operation Poppycock (“poppycock” was Jon Dahlander’s characterization), Miles sent an email out to everyone in the district, claiming that he grew up in a struggling school with a mother who didn’t speak English.

If that’s supposed to convince me that Miles wouldn’t stand by and let the district rip off a bunch of poor kids, it didn’t work. Unlike the people who believed Miles so much that they actually MOVED to Dallas to work with him and tied their reputations to him (inexplicable, in my opinion) despite his past performance, I require verifiable, transparent numbers.

Luckily, I’m quite sure the Feds will find the verifiable numbers we need.

For Step 3 of Operation Poppycock, Jim Terry countered Shipp in an elevator by saying, “How do we even know these numbers are from Dallas ISD?” Seriously? How much is Terry paid? That’s the best he could come up with?

Step 4 of Operation Poppycock involved Mike Morath mumbling something in front of his 2 giant computer screens. He’s the only person I am less likely to believe than Mike Miles, so I will just skip over Step 4 and let someone else explain that mess.

Here’s the bottom line: educated, informed people looked at the numbers and concluded that kids at Lakewood are getting about double the funding of kids at Stevens Park despite what the district is saying (and that’s just one of many examples).

My understanding is that Feds must act on this complaint within 6 months. I eagerly await the amount of “poppycock” and “hogwash” they find in the claims.

]]>It is that time again! Teachers recently got an email advertising Dallas ISD’s ONLY OPEN TRANSFER teacher job fair, to be held on March 21.

A cut and paste of that email began:

DISD is proud to partner with myEDmatch, a job-matching platform that empowers teachers to find a job in a school that is a good fit. To make the most of your time at the hiring fair, we recommend Dallas ISD schools (link), to learn more about the campus culture on their profiles, and even show interest in schools in advance of the fair.

What the heck, you ask, is myEDmatch? And why do you need to sign up with them before the job fair?

Well, you wouldn’t go to a church mission meeting or an art lecture at SMU or even a bar in Deep Ellum without first checking on Match.com first, would you? How many likely matches will you find at each of those venues? What sort of folks go and will I get along?

That’s pretty much what myEDmatch is, a dating service for teachers. You sign up, answer some questions, check out some school profiles, and voila’, you hook-up!

I guess Dallas ISD HR wants potential transfers to sign up and make their matches before the Job Fair Saturday. Makes for a much more efficient process.

“Hi, I’m Emily! I hear you are into deep thought on random numbers like me! We would be good together!”

It would be interesting to see the deal DISD has with myEDmatch, but their website indicates a cost per school of $1,499. That figures to be about $320,000 a year for DISD. That is assuming we get the $500 a school discount for a multiyear contract.

myEDmatch claims hiring a new teacher costs a district $12,500 in recruiting costs, so matching up schools and teachers and making everybody happy saves money in the long run, if all goes as planned.

I can’t envision prospective hires, after poring over school profiles in myEDmatch and starting their careers in DISD, without thinking of Goldie Hawn in Private Benjamin:

“I did join the Army, but I joined a different Army. I joined the one with the condos and the private rooms.”

myEDmatch was started by Alicia Herald, a former TFA recruit who rose through the ranks to become an Executive Director in the organization. Interestingly enough, and in the “It’s a Small World Category”, Alicia and former Dallas ISD HR director Carmen “IM” Darville were both TFA recruitment directors in 2008, Carmen in Chicago and Alicia in Kansas City . Carmen and Alicia also both played basketball in the same division during their college years. Whoop…whoop, girls!

Funny how that TFA patronage system is the gift that keeps on giving!

A couple of months ago, former TFA and current DISD Director of Planning and Special Projects Ashley “not non-elected” Bryan sent a friendly shout out to her fellow Dallas ISD TFA’ers, advertising administrative openings for the new Personalized Learning gig she oversees. Ashley says “although none of the positions below are officially posted”, please reach out to Ashley ”if you are interested in a central staff position.” Even though Ashley violated all kinds of policy by not posting those openings as required, she wanted to give her fellow TFA buddies first crack at the available jobs! Carmen got away with breaking policy, why not Ashley? In the world of DISD, TFA can do no wrong, apparently!

Texas legislator Jose’ Rodriguez (D-El Paso)recently filed House Bill 1060, legislation that would ”specify that a teacher who is employed by a district through a program that requires a two-year teaching commitment in an underserved area or low-income community and who leaves employment after the two-year commitment would not be considered for purposes of reporting teacher turnover information.”

With districts facing increasing scrutiny from the Department of Education and the Texas Education Agency on teachers’ roles in low-achieving and high need schools, including teacher retention in those schools, it only makes sense that districts prepare for the inevitable by cooking the books ahead of time.

Not only do TFA recruits count as “highly qualified” they may soon come and go in Texas without dinging any teacher retention accountability standards. Never mind that the point of measuring teacher turnover is to monitor what impacts children. To actually legislate that underserved children can have the least experienced teachers and then mask that information is not only wrong, but possibly illegal.

But still, another gift to TFA!

The Dallas-Fort Worth Regional TFA board is co-chaired by Mayor Mike Rawlings’ education advisor Todd Williams and his wife Abby. Other members include Boston Consulting Group’s J. Puckett, Container Store’s Garrett Boone, David Chard, dean of SMU’s School of Education, and home rule advocate and former DISD trustee Edwin Flores.

You have to wonder when these and other TFA supporters, who claim to be all about the kids, will advocate for programs and practices that actually benefit the kids, instead of propping up a patronage system that denies the neediest of our children the experienced and knowledgeable teachers they deserve.

]]>The Dallas Morning News editorial board is an easy bunch to impress. Hand out some graphs and throw around some data and you have them in the palm of your hand. No need to explain the data-don’t worry, they won’t question it.

While the education reporters at DMN dig through data and analyze it for themselves, the Editorial Board apparently feels it is OK to simply repeat everything they are told.

Todd Williams shocked DMN editor Jim Mitchell the other day with the stunning revelation that none… nada… ZERO of Texas’ Alternative Certification teachers were certified through programs that had received an “A” or a “B.”

Mitchell’s blog post had the attention grabbing headline “Texas only producing half the teachers the state needs.”

Did anyone at the DMN bother to ask where those numbers came from? Did they ask who or what certified those programs that are so horrible?

In response to a commenter, Williams pointed to the National Center for Teacher Quality (NCTQ) as the rating expert. NCTQ has been roundly criticized by many educators for the methodology it uses to rate teacher preparation programs. Shunned by many institutions who refuse to report statistics and program details to the group because of what they feel are biased and inaccurate rankings, NCTQ has been reduced to judging programs based on information found on institution websites.

Their approach has been likened to “judging restaurants based on their online menu.”Linda Darling-Hammond, chair of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing , noting that NCTQ does not “consider the actual quality of instruction that the programs offer, evidence of what their students learn, or whether graduates can actually teach,” said that “It is difficult to trust ratings that are based on criteria showing no relationship to successful teaching and learning.”

So what do the letter grade rankings that Williams used to stun the Editorial Board mean?

If 87% of our alternatively certified teachers came from an “F” ranked institution and the rest only managed “C’s” and “D’s,” should we be worried?

I have to tell you this is boring stuff, so stop here if you are looking for entertainment.

Pretend you are a perennial pickle maker presenting at the State Fair and follow along. Todd Williams has his graphs and stats, you have your pickles. Let’s see how AC teaching programs are ranked and compare that process to pickle judging. Pickle Standards are new this year for State Fair pickle makers, so you are hereby warned!

The majority of Texas Alternative Certification teachers come from programs not linked to institutes of higher learning (IHE). In 2012 6,337 AC teachers came from non- IHE programs and 1,735 from IHE based programs. Traditional 4 year programs certified about 11,000 more.

The National Council on Teacher Quality report claims to only cover secondary Alternative Certification (AC) programs, and ranked only those programs not associated with institutions of higher learning (non-IHE). There are 74 non- IHE AC programs in Texas. The NCTQ report is based on a “sample” of 38, selected “generally, on the annual production of teachers.”

NCTQ used data from Higher Education Act Title II reports, developed by the Department of Education. Comparing the two, we see that NCTQ reports the total number of enrollees and certificates awarded by the non-IHE programs they rank, not strictly the secondary programs they claim to be ranking. I am not sure it matters in the long run, except to expose their sloppy methodology.

So NCTQ claims to be ranking secondary programs only but reports data from all programs, and chose the samples it ranked based on generalities.

There’s no way to know if a more scientific sampling would have given different results on a statewide level. I doubt it, unless a shining star was overlooked. But the lesson for State Fair contestants is that if your pickles aren’t made from the right variety of cucumber you can go home now.

The first standard NCTQ addresses is candidate quality. Get your pickles ready. Wipe off that jar and put a little yellow bow on it.

“By employing sufficiently high but pragmatic admissions standards, the program is designed to attract talented individuals who otherwise would not choose to teach.”

The National Council on Teacher Quality defines a sufficiently high standard as a minimum GPA of 3.0 or higher or equivalent SAT score. This admission standard must also include an audition process that includes “tasks that assess the applicant’s classroom presence, problem-solving and interpersonal skills, and capacity to persevere in the pursuit of improved student outcomes.”

Well, guess what, it is hard to find a teacher preparation program that makes you audition. Certainly an aptitude test might be a good idea, and many of these institutions may offer them, but apparently none measured up to NCTQ standards. A few got points for holding interviews.

What about GPA?

Texas requires a minimum 2.5 for postgraduate AC candidate admission, which is below the NCTQ standard of 3.0. So most Texas programs got zip in that category. A few got partial points for inexplicable reasons.

But let’s look at the GPA of actual enrollees. Using data from 2013 Higher Education Act Title II Reports, we find that 76% of the programs reported median GPA’s over 3.0, some as high as 3.78. It looks like some programs simply reported the minimum GPA of 2.5 instead of calculating the actual GPA of its participants. What a mess!

Despite the confusing data, Alternative Certification teachers in Texas are not all from the bottom of the barrel academically as the Dallas Morning News would have us believe.

As for your pickles, sorry, you selected and packed 6 inchers. National Council of Pickle Quality (NCPQ) standards call for 4 inchers. You get zero points in Category 1. Like Texas AC programs, you are starting out with a grade of 66, and with no hope of raising it. You can only go lower.

The next NCTQ standard for Alternative Certification programs deals with content mastery.

NCTQ requires that a program ensures that candidates have an educational background in the content area in which they are seeking certification or have a passing score on a content test, before entering the classroom.

While a couple programs got points in this category, with vague explanations of “coursework and testing requirements ensure content knowledge is adequate”, almost all Texas programs did not.

While Texas AC programs require a 4 year degree to enter their programs, they do not require coursework in the certification area to enroll. Of course certification and the “highly qualified” designation requires coursework and content mastery, but since Texas allows certification candidates to teach on a probationary certificate, they FAIL again on NCTQ standards.

My goodness, about those pickles! You didn’t put mustard seeds in there, did you? NCPQ specifies Dill only for Quality Pickles. Zero points again. Discouraged? You should be. Your best possible score at this point is a 33.

The third standard deals with supervised practice being required before being the sole teacher in the classroom, the “teacher of record.” NCTQ requires 8 weeks of this.

Texas programs mostly fail here because AC teachers are permitted to teach on probationary certificates after only 30 hours of field based experience, and only earn full certification after a year in the classroom, assuming they have completed all other requirements. A mentor is assigned to each probationary teacher and observations are required. So, while Texas AC teachers do not meet NCTQ standards for “teacher of record”, they far exceed the clinical preparation time NCTQ requires by the time they are certified.

Another AC option involves content training with 12 weeks of unpaid student teaching in a classroom with an experienced teacher before receiving full certification, an option that should meet NCTQ standards but was apparently overlooked in their Google search of AC programs.

Contrary to the sky is falling scenario NCTQ presents, Texas AC teachers do follow a preparation program that includes supervised teaching.

Many of you are rightly thinking now of Teach for America recruits, who are deemed ready for the classroom after 5 weeks of training, and wonder where they fit in. TFA is one of NCTQ’s darlings, as you might expect of an organization Todd Williams relies on for research. In the Appendix accompanying the NCTQ report, TFA recruits appear to be excused by virtue of their “emphasis on “smarts” and candidates who are “mission driven” over preservice preparation as the key to better teaching.” Texas TFA teacher preparation academies are not ranked in the report, with no explanation given.

A few Texas programs got partial points from NCTQ in the preparation category, saving them from total ZERO failure. Most did not.

Your pickles? Sad to say, you ignored the NCPQ standard for canning immediately after pickling. You let your pickles soak in grandma’s crock with salt before packing them in jars with vinegar. No pickle points for you!

The graph shows 11,215 teachers listed as being newly certified in 2012 by Institutions of Higher Education (IHE). This is the traditional degree route to the classroom.

What’s missing here are ALL the 8,072 teachers certified by alternate means, 1,735 of whom came from programs run by IHE institutions, and including those 6,337 teachers certified by programs such as the one DISD had up until this year, the ones run by Regional Education Centers and numerous other for-profit groups, some linked with organizations, some not.

Adding all the AC certified teachers to the traditionally certified number we get a grand total of 19,574 newly certified teachers in 2012. Numbers for the previous year show 24,574 teachers were newly certified. These are initial certifications, not additional certifications for teachers seeking to change positions.

The graph claims 22,715 new teachers were needed in 2013. New as used here means beginning teachers, as reported to the Texas Education Agency.

The alarming part is the huge increase in the gap between teachers certified and beginning teachers, more than doubling between 2012 and 2013! The heading on the graph claims “significant gaps between teachers certified by IHE and new teachers needed”

Todd Williams’ graph is downright stunning. But the DMN uses it to create a panic where there should be none.

The shocking need gap the headline trumpets is magically produced by not counting new teachers certified by AC programs.

Apparently Williams feels justified in ignoring alternatively certified teachers because a group with a biased agenda devised a ranking program that dismissed Texas’ rules and requirements and failed the whole bunch of them.

The number of traditionally certified teachers has remained fairly constant, with a 1-2% change from year to year. Alternative Certification programs are more flexible and respond more quickly to fluctuations in teacher demand.

Because teachers seeking certification are included in the “beginning teacher” number the TEA reports, it is difficult to compare these numbers and get an accurate picture of need vs supply. Looking at the last few years, we find that Texas certified 69,420 new teachers in the years 2010-2012. The TEA reports 58,002 teachers began their careers in the years 2011-2013.

It looks like there are plenty of teachers available.

I can’t tell from Williams’ graph if we have a teacher shortage or not. I can’t tell if we have a shortage of bilingual teachers or math teachers or science teachers.

I certainly can’t tell if we have a shortage of good teachers, which is even more important. Unlike Todd Williams and the DMN, I am unwilling to label all Alternative Certification teachers as “failing.”

Every child deserves a fully prepared, effective teacher. No Child Left Behind originally required equitable access to “highly qualified” teachers, which was defined as “fully certified.” Ironically, the same reformers that support NCTQ’s attempts to bash teacher preparation programs also support Teach for America and lobbied for a change in the law that permits teachers in training to be considered “highly qualified.” This change permits our highest need classrooms, in both charters and public schools, to be disproportionately staffed with teachers in training, including TFA recruits.

Mitchell writes, “There’s no reason an alt.cert. teacher can’t be a good teacher…”

I agree with that statement. Where we disagree is whether there is good research on Alternative Certification programs and the quality of the teachers they produce. When we have federal laws that consider teachers in training “highly qualified” it is hard to quibble over a few GPA points.

If there are substandard Alternative Certification programs, and I have no doubt that some exist, give us some real data that shows that, not misleading charts and bogus rankings.

To wrap this up, it is false to say Texas is only producing half the teachers the state needs. It is also misleading to say the majority of programs that are producing these teachers are so inadequate they deserve a grade of “F.” The data used to make that claim is not linked to actual teacher performance or student outcomes, but is instead based on a poorly executed review of the programs that train teachers, using a ranking developed without consideration for Texas’ own legislatively developed standards and practices.

]]>Since Mike Miles has arrived in Dallas, the number of Improvement Required (IR) schools has increased. That’s right, Miles fans: despite a Rides on Rims debacle, subjecting 1st graders to ACP exams in Art, harassing 5,000 experienced teachers until they quit, and a host of other scandals, the number of struggling schools has, mysteriously, gone up. Who could have predicted such a thing?

Naturally, this development made the “reformers” who support Miles, along with Miles himself, look completely ignorant and not at all worthy of the public’s trust. Miles had to respond with a plan, and pronto.

This is where it gets good (OK, I admit it: I love to see greedy, destructive people fail).

Initially, Miles responded by trying to vaguely mention something about the district moving Distinguished Teachers to the IR campuses (probably as a way to float the idea before formally announcing it). I couldn’t have been more delighted; the idea was classic Miles. All of us who have worked under this regime are used to this offensive mindset: the presumptuousness and the arrogance that reveals the deep belief that administrators and reformers “own” teachers and can treat them however they like. The mindset is that teachers in this regime are nothing more than chattel.

The public, however, was taken aback. So, since it came off like a threat to force Distinguished Teachers to move as part of what can only be called the weirdest reward ever, that idea was just as quickly quashed.

Again, I have a confession: I was disappointed to see the idea yanked off the radar because I truly looked forward to watching Miles attempt to drag teachers across town to new campuses while an aghast public looked on.

The latest scheme, though, is equally wacko and ripe with potential for entertainment. In this scheme, Distinguished Teachers who will consider moving to an IR school are promised both cash and some kind of TEI safeguard.

In other words, a Giant Dose of Reality has loomed large over a small Mike Miles and forced him to concede that the public doesn’t want teachers treated like chattel, that IR schools face incredible challenges and that TEI hurts teachers in IR schools (if it didn’t hurt them, why would he promise to protect their TEI scores?).

Of course, DISD teachers already know this, which is why almost no one will move voluntarily. Apart from 1 or 2 who plan to leave DISD anyway after the incentive pay runs out, any other teacher who does agree to move will only agree after being pressured or coerced in some way. And just wait until the parents find out that the supposedly-best teachers at their child’s school are being pressured and paid extra to leave (except at Lakewood, where they like Miles so much they won’t mind if he pressures lots of their good teachers into leaving).

So then what is Miles going to do to address the IR schools? Teachers aren’t going to move willingly and some might get vocal about being pressured to move.

Teachers already at the IR schools aren’t going to be happy, either. They will resent the new colleagues who come in making more money with less accountability (because of the TEI safeguards mentioned) simply because the transferring teachers either worked at a better functioning school previously or had a principal who gave them inflated Spot Ob scores.

Speaking of principals, how will principals react to this incentive system? Will they lower Spot Ob scores so that none of their teachers get Distinguished Teacher status in order to prevent those teachers from switching campuses? I bet that’s exactly what will happen. Will teachers sue once they figure this out?

Will some teachers take the incentive pay and move, only to then quit after a year because of the daunting conditions at IR schools, which are made even worse by Miles’ teaching mandates?

What will happen if the school gets a “Dade Raid” from Miles and he ends up reassigning one of the Distinguished Teachers in the frenzy (probably for sitting down while taking roll or something like that)?

It’s a train wreck, of course, but it’s on par with what’s been happening in DISD ever since Miles arrived.

There is a way to fix these problems. There is a way to fix all of DISD, as a matter of fact. The fix begins with hiring Alan King or someone like him to replace Mike Miles. After that, we could all refocus, regroup and watch our property values climb because we’d be part of a district where students get a great education and are enriched by a sense of community.

Or we can wait to see if teachers actually choose career suicide by moving to IR schools for a very short-term and uncertain gain of a few thousand dollars promised to them with dozens of strings attached by a man like Miles.

]]>There seems to be plenty of cash floating around the world today, European banks are, oddly enough, charging negative interest to depositors. Rising fees in neighborhood banks here in the U.S. have the same effect, leaving one to consider Mattress Banking as an option.

Money seems to be plentiful in Dallas ISD too, and a newer, maybe more better funding plan for new facilities is on the Board briefing agenda for Thursday.

The total dollar amount, $148 million, aims to fund projects deemed too important to wait for a Tax Rate Hike or a Bond Election in November.

The new plan hikes the amount of maintenance tax notes from $65 million to $75 million and dips into the reserve fund for $43 million more. Despite DISD spokesman Jon Dahlander’s claim in a DMN article in February that “all but $16 million from previous bond programs has been assigned to projects,” the number crunchers found $14 million more in 2008 bond funds to add to the pot, for a grand total of $30 million. Hope that wasn’t your school that lost out on that one!

Maintenance Tax Notes are repaid from the same pot as PFC bonds would be, and coupled with $143 million in these same kind of notes issued last fall, leaves DISD with a big debt to pay on down the road. Unless refinanced, repayment will come from the same fund that pays teachers and buys toilet paper.

A neat graphic from the Fast Growth Texas Coalition shows that DISD has quite a bit of regular bond debt that’s already been kicked down a separate road, so let’s hope Jim’s Shop has all the calculations right for future repayment. The piper must always be paid, or, as fans of the cartoon character Wimpy of Popeye’s fame will remember, “I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today!”

A look see at the facilities funded by the Bridge Plan is interesting. Lakewood parents, who have worked long and hard for their school and have jump started improvements with community donations of $300,000, will be thrilled when this passes. They are promised $12 million. Let’s hope there will be some money left over to spend on chicken wire and furnace repair.

Lakewood assistant principal Sharon Lewis said in a recent news story, “the biggest concern is space, especially the number of portables connected only by walkways. Safety is a concern. So is security. Students have to go outside to get to the water fountain and restrooms in the main building.

“We have to constantly work on the air, work on the heating [in the portables],” said Lewis.

Macon, Titche, and Tom Field Elementary parents and students, whose schools were also identified as overcrowded, will have to make do with new portables (“modulars” in DISD New Speak) to solve their problems in this go-round. Perhaps they can organize to protest safety, security, and air conditioning issues and qualify for a new addition next year.

The new Joe May Elementary, the last of the 2008 Bond schools to be built, will hopefully help to alleviate crowding at Tom Field and other northwest Dallas schools. It’s been a tough fight to get Joe May built, with then DISD trustee Edwin Flores alienating residents in the Webb Chapel area with his insistence that the school be built on a dangerous curve in the road and amid charges from residents that the district bought up properties and made plans for the school before informing area homeowners.

The Bridge Plan also earmarks $8.5 million for Personalized Learning Schools, $1 million of which is allocated to a school which I think does not yet exist. Amazing that this all started with a $100,000 grant from Gates in 2013. Let’s hope these schools are successful. I am still not sure what a Personalized Learning school looks like, other than some cool futuristic furniture.

DISD Transformation Chief Mike Kaprowski’s $20.1 million Choice Plan finishes up with $8.4 million in requests for schools whose type and location are identified as TBD. Mike has only been on board since last summer, so we can understand there’s no concrete plan for Choice Schools finalized. That might even be a good thing.

What is hard to understand is why we are being asked to fund undefined and unidentified projects.

That’s the part which needs discussing. It’s one thing to pay tomorrow for hamburgers eaten today, it’s another thing altogether to pay today for tomorrow’s mystery meat.

]]>DISD parents deserve to know what teachers see and hear on every campus in DISD.

Teacher voices must not be threatened or silenced by any principal or administrator in the district because that would be a direct violation of the First Amendment right to Free Speech. The right to Free Speech is a right all Americans enjoy, especially employees of a government entity like a public school district.

(Bloggers also enjoy protections under the Freedom of the Press part of the First Amendment. Founding Fathers established Freedom of the Press so that citizens could and would monitor, investigate and report the truth about what goes on in government entities in order to prevent corruption). Based on the reasoning behind the First Amendment, it looks like the Founding Fathers would consider blogging about a public school district the patriotic thing to do!

No one likes it when the facts cast them in an unfavorable light, but it is legal to tell the truth and it is illegal to retaliate against truth-tellers in any way.

This brings us to the Fall Climate Survey results and the failure to report those results. It could be interpreted that the results are not being published in order to silence teachers about what they witness on their individual campuses. Some teachers are now fearful that because their responses may not have been positive, they will endure retaliation (even though they were promised anonymity) and the public will never know what prompted the retaliation.

Bottom line: teachers completed the surveys, taxpayers paid for the surveys and it is past time to share the results.

For example, one of the survey statements is: Unruly students are not permitted to disrupt the learning environment. Teachers may choose responses that include Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree or Strongly Disagree.

Certainly, every DISD parent has the right to know what percentage of teachers on their child’s campus answered positively (either Strongly Agree or Agree) about whether or not unruly students are permitted to be disruptive. No parent wants their child to attend a school where “unruly” students rule the roost and parents should not be forced to rely on a principal’s say-so to determine if that happens.

Another statement is: Discipline is enforced consistently and effectively at my campus. Again, parents deserve to know what percentage of teachers answered Strongly Agree/Agree. If you had children in any school, wouldn’t knowing if teachers agreed with this statement be important to you?

A third statement is: My campus leadership helps me improve the quality of my instruction. If the majority of teachers at a campus do not either strongly agree or agree with that statement, this could indicate a problem at that campus. Think about it: if the majority of teachers answer Neutral or Disagree, isn’t that a red flag? Isn’t it the principal’s job (and the APs’ and especially the Instructional Coaches’) to help teachers improve to the point that teachers can either strongly agree or agree with that statement?

Parents also deserve to know the percentage of teachers who strongly agree/agree with the statement: I have the support I need from campus leadership to do my job well.

Other than blogs and the climate survey, teachers have no way to anonymously report campus conditions. The taxpayers paid for the survey because taxpayers understand the need to hear from teachers. So where are the results?

DISD parents and taxpayers should request the results from their child’s campus or any campus. If a campus refuses to provide the results, Dallas needs to know.

I hope the Dallas Morning News (as the city’s only traditional newspaper) and all of the other media outlets will join us in calling for the results to be published so parents can have the information they need to be fully engaged and aware when it comes to their child’s education.

Who is denying the release of the survey results so that they can be published?

]]>Every single week in DISD, another teacher quits. Or 20, depending on whose numbers you’re reading.

As an effective (rated as such by student test scores and administrator evaluations) DISD teacher, it would be my pleasure to fill the public in on precisely why good teachers quit in DISD.

First of all, let’s make one thing clear: It’s NOT the poverty of the kids that drives teachers away; in fact, many DISD teachers work in DISD because of the level of need. To help a child facing so many challenging obstacles and circumstances is rewarding in a way that cushy conditions and the amount of money your average 1%-er makes just isn’t. Crazy, I know, but not everyone has aspirations to be a 1%-er.

Teachers also aren’t quitting in in droves due to the fact that administrators in DISD rake in obscene amounts of money while teachers have to beg strangers on Donors Choose for COPY PAPER. It is sort of demeaning to beg for copy paper while the superintendent pays 5-figure severances to people who QUIT, but teachers have learned to put their students first.

TEI? Not a concern. Similar schemes have failed all over the nation and TEI will fail here. It is unsustainable and will not withstand the onslaught of lawsuits headed its way. It’s not going to last. Every teacher knows that DISD is going to have raise pay across the board to attract and retain staff whether they like it or not, regardless of TEI. No one is quitting because they don’t think they’ll ever get another raise.

Neither are teachers resigning en masse because of the rampant corruption down at 3700, corruption that’s so bad it makes Mardi Gras on Bourbon Street look like a Sunday School class. While immoral and illegal, teachers can work around it.

I’m sure the guy is really nice while he’s taking a “reporter” on a tour of an elementary school, but he doesn’t know sheep sh*t from cotton seed when it comes to picking great principals, motivating teachers and looking out for vulnerable students.

The truth is that conditions for most teachers at most campuses would make Carmen Darville blush.

For starters, principals are hired without serving at least 3 years as assistants in DISD. So they barge in, barking out orders, blaming teachers, changing everything but the brick exterior and they promptly fall flat on their faces while discipline problems soar out of control.

Almost immediately, a vicious cycle of teacher churn, unsafe conditions and falling scores takes hold; in response, the unprepared Fellows do the only thing they know to do: they double-down on the micromanaging, the anger, the belittling, the blaming, the demands and the constraints on teachers.

If you don’t believe me, just look at the results from the Fall Climate Survey.
Oh wait…you can’t! The district won’t release them. Isn’t that strange.

Sadly, once a school loses a few of its effective teachers, it’s a Festival of Failure from there on out and teachers cannot risk going down with the ship. Without a change in leadership, a mass exodus begins that can’t be stopped. Turnover begets turnover, which begets discipline problems and unsafe conditions.

Then there’s what some call the Miles’ Method of Teaching that drives teachers away. HOURS are spent worshipping every aspect of this format and discussing it like it’s an Eternal Truth handed down by L. Ron Hubbard. The Fellows, fresh out of their indoctrination sessions, are determined to enforce it regardless of what it does to kids and any measurement of student achievement. The beatings will continue until morale improves! Teachers are forced to spend excessive amounts of time and energy crafting and defending their LOs and DOLs (and now SLOs) while Rome burns. And by “Rome” I mean campus discipline.

But who gets the blame when all of the LO/DOL navel-gazing results in dropping test scores and dangerous discipline problems? The principals who practically fetishize LO/DOL/MRS in their desperation to please Miles? Of course not; the teachers get all of the blame.

Not surprisingly, word about all of this gets out and few new teachers want to work in DISD. This certainly isn’t because colleges aren’t graduating enough people certified to teach. There are plenty of certified teachers waiting in the wings…of other school districts. They simply won’t work where the conditions are deplorable.

(Not that I’m an economist or anything, but I remember reading about this thing called “capitalism” and “the markets.” Basically, the theory is that people won’t work where they’re treated like sheep sh*t unless they are paid very well–like a Mike-Miles-cabinet-hire level of well).

So there you have it: DISD is bleeding effective teachers and no one is waiting in DISD’s wings to replace them because the working conditions in DISD are abysmal. Effective teachers don’t have to stick around and increasing numbers refuse to do so.

The solution—the only solution—is to find a new superintendent before the suburbs start hiring in April.

]]>Those of you who have been in the Dallas Morning News building may be able to answer this question: When you get in the elevator, are all the floors marked with numbers or are there gaps or maybe symbols for certain floors?

I’m thinking the News Department surely has a numbered button, but apparently the Editorial Department has some secret entrance known only to a chosen few.

This secret keyhole surely must be how Mayor Rawlings (maybe extra work for Sam Merten at one point?) sneaks in his talking points and certainly is how Superintendent Mike Miles delivers his latest spin on the urgent need to support his reform measures, because there’s a total disconnect between the factual reporting going on at the News level and the endless drumbeat of Miles’ support by the Editorial board.

On the one hand, reporters Matt Haag and Tawnell Hobbs continue their slog through 4,000 pages of instant messages from the HR department at DISD and link them to an almost comical video from the October 22, 2014 Board meeting, detailing what they politely call contradictions in how the administration justified a request for $6.4 million to pay for extra staff.

What the messages reveal is a $10 million plus “whoopsie” on the part of the personnel department, and the board meeting video documents Miles’ and his cabinet chiefs’ attempt to explain the budget request without admitting the screw-up.

Who would trust these guys with over a billion dollars? When Miles was asked at a DMN editorial board meeting how much of a tax rate increase would be lost to “Robin Hood”, he declined to answer, basically saying that was CFO Jim Terry’s area of expertise, not his. When Jim Terry was asked at the October Board meeting what the current enrollment figures were, he gave a way-off number then corrected with “I’ll get back to you.”

Does anybody know anything? And if they do, who do they tell? Miles has already admitted he shares with some board members more than others, why would we not expect that from everyone at 3700?

I guess, as Miles and Terry tried to explain in their nonsensical explanations of the leveling process and teacher placement, there are apples and then there are APPLES, and we shouldn’t attempt to understand the difference and compare them to oranges, or something like that.

Deputy Superintendent Ann Smisko did her part to add to the confusion, and in the process showed her willingness to join the crowd under the bus, when she wrote trustees a letter explaining that the district cannot be accused of over-hiring last fall when there were vacancies, despite the fact that, as DMN reporter Matt Haag points out, both too many teachers and vacancies can exist at the same time if the wrong hires are made.

Imagine having to pay back over a billion dollars in bonds from General Operating Funds this way, relying on an administration that, at any given point, can’t explain basic school finance and has no idea how many kids are enrolled, and varies the fund balance numbers according to the target audience.

A recent Moody’s report cautioned that DISD’s bond rating could be affected by:

Gee, can’t you see every one of those scenarios happening? An economic downturn and a decline in appraisal values resulting in decline in tax revenue? Imbalanced operations due to inexperienced hires in personnel resulting in millions of dollars in staffing overruns; that certainly sounds familiar. And that $143 million payment due in 2033? Well surely the district will not run into problems by burdening the district with even more debt that draws from the same well as salaries and utility payments.

So we have an administration that can’t accurately count current teachers or students, tells different stories to different people depending on the phase of the moon, can’t explain how they plan to finance future building without the cheat sheet they left at the office, and has a plausible explanation for the use of the word “spin” as used by a personnel coordinator desperately “making a mess look like it was all part of the plan.”

There is one conclusion that becomes obvious when listening to the October Board meeting video. We can all save ourselves time and trouble and just watch this clip next Thursday instead of the regularly scheduled Board Meeting.

]]>One could just roll the last few posts into one article that would describe perfectly last night’s Called Board Meeting. The agenda covered the Internal Audit investigation into Human Capital Management, the superintendents’ response, and the release of the Coggin’s report clearing Bernadette Nutall of any wrongdoing in her relations with district employees.
Foxes in the henhouse, mind your own business and, of course, toilet paper.

The Board came out of closed session and proceeded to publicly grill chief Internal Auditor Mike Singleton on the first agenda item for public discussion, his handling of the serious allegations one of his investigators had raised concerning the Human Capital Management (HCM) department.

It became apparent pretty quickly that a public spanking was all that would come of this tortuous process. Singleton went round and round; he had never hidden anything from trustees, the trustees were informed of the investigation in their Friday packet, when the scope of the investigation changed he decided to maybe seek outside counsel and delayed the report until the investigation could be completed.

By golly, he was going to “build that case and make one report.”

But of course he did make a report, to Superintendent Mike Miles, on January 7, even though the investigation was not completed. To tell you the truth, I’m not sure it even officially started. Which raises the question of how you can complete an investigation which hasn’t even been initiated.

Apparently, when investigator Vickie Blair resigned, citing a lack of support for an investigation into top administrators, Internal Audit didn’t know what to do with her report. I guess Singleton was looking for direction from Miles when he presented it to him.

Miles claimed to be taking his time, making a deliberate decision with due respect for a hard working employee, until the Dallas Morning News published the infamous derogatory messages.

Even though Miles says he’s “not good at making tough decisions” he made his mind up pretty quickly at that point and the HCM chief and another employee were out the door. Funny how a little publicity can speed up the decision making process.

So, Mike Singleton has been properly chastised but he has crawled out from under the bus and been given another chance.

Let’s hope Singleton’s error was not the same as Williams’. Not sure that’s a comparison I would appreciate.

The discussion ended with Miles giving us a laundry list of new evaluation procedures for staff, new training and new professional development.

So, nothing here to look at, move along and mind your own business!

The next discussion concerned Miles’ handling of the whole affair, what he knew when and who he told.

Miles admitted to discussing the resignations of HCM Chief Carmen Darville and Director Tony Munoz, and/or their settlements, with all trustees except Nutall, Foreman, and Jones. And he said so with no apology or regret.

That’s the toxic situation these three trustees have repeatedly found themselves in with Miles, yet they are chastised by the media for not playing nice, and the “dysfunctional” board was one of the Home Rule supporters’ main complaints.

Best quote during this discussion was from Trustee Jones who, after Miles identified Tonya Sadler-Grayson, whose failure to disclose a conviction on her application triggered the investigation that led to the present situation, as being currently in charge of the Office of Professional Standards, asked “And the wisdom of that is what?”

We listened to justifiable outrage from at least five of the trustees as they expressed, with strong language and even stronger emotion at times, their displeasure with the Superintendent and his actions.

But, in the end, after all the words had been used: reprehensible, appalled, outraged, hypocritical, intolerable, not acceptable, poor judgment, failed judgment, after a litany of sins had been spelled out and detailed, the Board walked away with no action taken.

Trustee Blackburn pleaded with all present to “work together.” “We do not have to be enemies.”

Again, what is the definition of insanity?

Auctioning off toilet paper when campuses ration its use fits the definition. So does expecting different behavior from a superintendent and his administration when they have clearly demonstrated they have absolutely no intention of working with the Board.

Apparently the Superintendent, the bully that he is, has enough support from Mayor Rawlings and the cadre of puppet masters who brought him to Dallas, that he is untouchable no matter what his behavior or policies, no matter what disgrace and embarrassment he brings to Dallas.

Trustees should remember that behavior that is tolerated today is behavior that can be expected tomorrow.

]]>Teachers have posted on blogs and raised the issue at meetings. Basic supplies including copy paper and toilet paper are at a premium in the district. PTA’s are asked to buy copy paper for their schools, and students are asked to bring Kleenex and hand sanitizer.

Toilet paper seems to be on the Short Supply List at many schools.

One teacher buys toilet paper for her class; when a student takes a trip to the necessary, she rations out a number of sheets and places them in a plastic baggy, since there is no guarantee the students will find what they need in the school restroom.

Well, looky here, it seems we have found the answer to the question of where all that taxpayer bought toilet paper is going, since obviously it’s not finding its way to BOYS or GIRLS!

Now that we have discovered where the missing TP is, maybe we can unwind a roll or two and see if we can follow the paper trail to its source, and figure out why the heck the district thinks it has surplus toilet paper.

]]>This blog first brought up the issue of funding Dallas ISD facility needs with a Public Facility Corporation which would issue bonds repaid by general operating funds of the district as part of a lease purchase agreement. These bonds would neither be guaranteed by the state nor voter approved. The bylaws of this Corporation are shot with loopholes and the Articles of Incorporation do not mention some of the more troubling aspects of this scheme found in the law that authorizes those entities.

Talk about upsetting the apple cart!

The Dallas Morning News, Jim Schutze, Todd Williams, and probably even the paid shill over at D magazine have come to the rescue of DISD with editorials and emails denouncing those who dare to question this Corporation setup as evil doers poisoning the waters of public opinion, protecting bad teachers, and in general haters of children, particularly poor kids.

We are asked to support every initiative the district proposes without question because, of course, lack of student success can be overcome with the right program, the right school, the right teacher. Never mind that the Broad Foundation discontinued its annual contest for the best urban school district because, frankly, there just aren’t any, not even after years of Broad driven reform ideas. The Gates Foundation has funded a never ending stream of reforms, from Small Learning Communities to the current Personalized Learning. How many of these initiatives have lasted more than 3-4 years?

Gosh, even the Dallas Morning News, in an apparent lapse of editorial judgment, said “Dallas and other major districts have failed to distinguish themselves for reasons that go beyond effective teaching in the classroom. Poverty is a consistent culprit here, which is why schools in Dallas’ poorest neighborhoods, including those south of Interstate 30 and the Trinity River, post disappointing performance results.”

Really? I could have sworn that the DMN, Todd!, Mayor Rawlings, Ken Barth, et al, have been telling us that BAD TEACHERS are the reason our kids are not succeeding. That a child’s ZIP code should not determine their destiny. That all children can learn, regardless of their SES background. It’s the teachers’ fault if the kid does not achieve!

Which brings us to what to do about those poor kids and their educational opportunities.

The district is asking the Board of Trustees to approve $172 million in debt, $107 million of that funded by the Public Facility Corporation. The next step, apparently, is to ask voters to approve a permanent tax rate hike, to the allowable $1.17 per $100.

This is to fund the “recommendations” of the Future Facilities Task Force. The Task Force has been meeting since October, yet from a review of their agendas it looks like they have mostly been listening, not discussing. There is mention in recent news releases from the district of “community input” but that has yet to happen. In fact, the final report has not even been drafted, and the Task Force has not finished its job. I’m not sure Task Force members even saw the draft report before it was released this week.

The Parson’s Facility Report, released in 2013, is the basis for much of the facility renovation recommendations. Houston ISD also contracted with Parson’s for their facility report, and many were shocked when it was revealed that the figures were not based totally on site visits but also used computer modeling.

Was this how Dallas ISD’s $2.6 billion in needs was calculated?

So trustees are being asked now to approve funding for a major overhaul of district facilities before a final report has even been made. The district has proposed creating a Public Facility Corporation, which will issue debt repaid from General Operating Funds. Payments on the proposed $105.7 million initial debt will be $2.7 million a year for 5 years, with payments increasing afterwards and due in 25 years for a total of $267 million. This will fund a portion of the facilities plan before the district presents a comprehensive plan for the whole $1.5 billion proposal.

While explaining the necessity of this scheme to the board,we were warned we must buy now, as the price will go up! This scare tactic falls short on facts; there is little chance the higher interest rate a PFC would have to pay would be matched by rising rates on General Obligation Bonds issued after next November, especially considering the PFC must wait 60 days for public comment before issuing debt. And of course we are warned construction costs will go up.

As Trustee Foreman said, “We will always have needs.” What’s the rush?

In all of this talk about the future, trustees have not been asked to consider, or even allowed to have a discussion on, the ramifications of a Tax Ratification Election.

Terry explained the complexities of school finance in a presentation using “buckets” and “pennies”. Long story short, Dallas is a property wealthy district, and, until current law changes, is subject to “recapture” on tax rates above $1.06 per $100.

Terry explained, and these are 2012 numbers so this may have changed, that for every penny above our current rate of $1.04, the district would raise $11.9 million for pennies $1.05 and $1.06; but for pennies $1.07 through $1.17, we would only keep $6.3 million per penny, and would have to send the rest back to the state.

For example, of the extra $130 per $100,000 in taxes you might pay on your home after the proposed TRE, almost $52 will go to other districts.

So say the value of your North Dallas home is $400,000. You will pay an extra $520 per year in taxes, but our children keep $312 and $208 goes to the state. Appraisals are higher now than in 2012 so this number may not be the same today, but you get the idea.

Has this part of a tax hike been made public and discussed? Is this a reasonable, efficient way to fund facilities? It has already been outed that Corporation bonds carry higher interest rates than General Obligation Bonds. Now we want to possibly fund future facilities with tax dollars that we only get to keep a portion of?

Is this the best way? Have we had the discussion?

This is not about upsetting the apple cart, this is about putting the cart before the horse!

Trustees, and taxpayers, should demand full disclosure on the future plans and funding before being asked to approve any part of it. Transparency and common sense demand that we have all the facts before we commit funds to this plan, funds that belong to the children.

Let’s start discussion of our future plans with an honest, detailed analysis of the data, at a child level. Pie charts showing the achievement gap and graphs of income levels don’t tell us what to do in a classroom of 3rd graders. We have the knowledge and the resources to do it the right way; let’s give our children support based on their individual needs and the needs of their community. If the need for a new school or a new classroom becomes apparent after that discussion then let’s find the best way to build it.